While it is still difficult to ascertain whether history books will rate Obama's years in the White House as a relative success or failure, it is safe to say that his presidency will be deemed as highly consequential.

The notable domestic policies and programs have so far included the fiscal stimulus, the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare), measures to combat climate change, executive action on immigration, and few other wins such as promoting women's rights and those of the LGBT community.

On the foreign policy front, Obama shifted the focus to the Asia-Pacific, ended the Bush-era wars while stepping up drone warfare, and displayed a mixed response to the so-called Arab Spring and its aftermaths. His presidency began with a strong commitment to multilateralism and reaching out to US competitors and rivals, which has so far yielded varied results (see China, Russia, Iran).

The Obama administration has been pushing for it behind the scenes over the past couple of years. The logic behind it is clear - the Cold War ended over a quarter of century ago and the policy of isolation failed to lead to a regime change in Cuba. Furthermore, since the Castros are not getting any younger, this is a good window of opportunity to secure US interests if power changes hands.

More importantly, the president has the majority of public opinion on his side. Some recent polls (including a ABC/Langer poll, and a CNN/ORC poll) have shown that the support for normalizing relations is almost 2:1 nationwide. The support is even higher when it comes to ending travel restrictions, and there is still a clear majority of Americans who want to see the embargo removed. Another important factor is the generational shift within the Cuban American voters, since the younger generations do not share their parents and grandparents' staunch anti-communist stances and tend to vote for Democrats.

Victor Hugo once remarked that no army can stop an idea whose time has come; with respect to Cuba, it seems that the conditions for policy change are ripe. However, while there is no proverbial army to stop it, there certainly is a majority Republican Congress. Upon taking control of both chambers, Republicans have announced that Cuba ranks high on a pre-prepared list of issues on which they will fight the President.

The motivation to do so is both ideological and political. First, many GOP heavyweights, such as the Speaker of the House John Boehner, have come out against revisiting relations on the grounds that Cuban regime is "a dictatorship that brutalizes its people and schemes with our enemies". They see normalisation and lifting of the embargo as a perverse reward to the government that does not grant freedom to its people.

There is also politics at play. One apparent explanation could be pure obstructionism and not wanting to let the Democratic president leave the office with a good scorecard. However, it goes deeper than that. Republican presidential hopefuls have already started preparing for the next primaries and they know that pandering to conservative Cuban Americans brings victory in Florida. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Senator Marco Rubio have already expressed that they disagree with Obama's proposal, while Senator Rand Paul might have lost Florida when he backed the President last month.

Knowing that neither side is willing to back down, what is then the likely outcome of yet another standoff between the president and the Republicans in Congress? The first two articles of the US constitution clearly spell out the powers of legislative and executive branches. When it comes to foreign policy, the president is arguably a bit more powerful. Obama can use executive orders to direct the foreign policy bureaucracy to ease travel restrictions, re-establish diplomatic ties and expand trade in order to "hollow out the embargo". He can also use the symbolism of high-level meetings with his Cuban counterpart to set the agenda and further sway the public opinion.

In turn, we can expect the Congress to use its 'power of the purse' and deny funds to reopen consular offices in Cuba. In addition, the Senate majority has the power to obstruct the confirmation of a new ambassador. There is also a potential pushback on further loosening of the travel restrictions, and it is almost certain that the 114th Congress will not vote to formally repeal the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which would lift the current trade embargo.

Many analysts have pointed to the historical analogy with the rapprochement, the legendary Cold War breakthrough in 1972, when President Nixon and Chairman Mao re-established relations after more than two decades of isolation. There is a widespread belief that "only Nixon" was able to achieve this; in other words, only an anti-communist hardliner could convince his party to a change of course.

Perhaps if a Republican president were to announce a turn in policy towards Cuba, the opposition would be less pronounced. Yet, Obama could still win this fight, as he seems to have picked the right timing.

Dr Gorana Grgic is a lecturer in US Politics and foreign policy at the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

Comments (27)

Comments for this story are closed.

the yank:

16 Jan 2015 3:29:30pm

The Republicans will stand in Obama's way no matter what he does. They might want to remember that Obama won around 78% of the "Spanish American" vote and that in board terms this 'group' makes up some 17% of the American voting public.

I am glad someone has finally tried to normalise relations with Cuba. It has been much too long in the coming.

HNY:

A Dose of Reality:

16 Jan 2015 4:08:35pm

It is well past it's time.

The USA should abandon it's "base" at G-bay that was forced on the Cubans after the Spanish/American War - they were given a choice:a) "independence but we're getting the best bit" or b) "you stay a colony of the USA").

The Cuban American youth - lack the fervent "anti communist" attitude of their grandparents because they were not the ruling elite before the revolution.

The republicans, to whom money always comes first (a bit like our lot of idiots), will not come to the party because the Cubans did the "unthinkable" - they nationalised those companies (including the USA companies) that were shamelessly exploiting the country/population.

And as for "..lifting of the embargo as a perverse reward to the government that does not grant freedom to its people ..." - can they explain Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pinochet, Hussain (for a long time), the Shah (of Iran), Nicaragua, Dubai, Egypt, just to name a few .....?

Zing:

Who knows? She's probably assuming that Palestine exists, or that it's part of Israel or visa versa.

What she doesn't recognise is that the Palestinian territories are occupied. An occupied territory can't expect freedom unless they sign a peace agreement and cease to pose a threat to their occupier.

Even if the Palestinians had the capacity to sign such an agreement, they have no intention of doing so. They'd rather stick their feet into the sand until the international community gives them victor's terms.

A Dose of Reality:

"An occupied territory can't expect freedom unless they sign a peace agreement and cease to pose a threat to their occupier. "

You have it the wrong way around.

The Palestinians are no threat to Israel.

How quickly we forget. # Israelis are killed (it has not been proved that Palestinians did it) in an area of Israel where Palestinians are not allowed.

The response is systematic destruction of a city (including UN centres, schools, hospitals and the only electrical utility) - including the deaths of over 2ooo civilians (while Israelis dance in the streets rejoicing that kids are dying - or take chairs on a hill to watch the city be destroyed).

Palestinian defence causes the deaths of 63 Israeli solders (who are blowing up houses at the time!).

To pretend that the conflict is Israel being "scared for it's safety" is to validate the slaughter - and condone the oppression.

Malcolm:

16 Jan 2015 5:34:39pm

Cuba's biggest sin was that when Castro came to power it stamped out the Mafia run gambling casinos and brothels. At the time both the Democrats and the Republicans were in the Mafia's pocket - the US used its historic antipathy to socialism to mask the fact that so long as either Kennedy or Nixon were either contenders for the Presidency or President (as it transpired) a great deal of their campaign funding and political clout was provided by organized crime. Castro got rid of Batista who was simply a stooge for the mob and the rest is history. Cuba wasn't punished for becoming socialist but punished because it cut off the huge tax free profits American organised crime was making from its Cuban operations. No wonder Castro was forced into the arms of the Soviet Union.

Alpo:

16 Jan 2015 6:08:02pm

"No wonder Castro was forced into the arms of the Soviet Union.".... Too true, Malcolm. There was perhaps a very short period (months) soon after the 1959 revolution, when the relationship between Cuba and the USA could have been salvaged. But the chance was soon lost and followed by the Bay of Pigs attempted invasion in 1961.... and the rest is history indeed!

Mallick:

16 Jan 2015 4:13:04pm

I also cannot see that the Republicans will support the normalising of relations with Cuba. In our 2 party dominated political systems any practical good idea seems to be dismissed immediately by the 'other' side just because they want to use the opportunity to criticise the other. I would hope that Obama can be successful in this plan. Could the USA still be scared of the Domino theory of communism from a small Caribbean Island?

Terry:

16 Jan 2015 5:21:03pm

Why would the Republicans block the decision to give in to Cuba, which steadfastly refuses to alter its policies?

After all, abject appeasement worked a treat in Cairo. Apologising to the world's Muslims for throwing the Taliban out of Afghanistan and removing the dictator Saddam Hussein (who single-handedly is responsible for more Muslim deaths than any other for centuries) won him the hearts and minds of all.

So we can expect a similar good response from Cuba. Surely they would not celebrate having outlasted the USA?

Malcolm:

16 Jan 2015 5:47:18pm

Well perhaps someone could explain what exactly Cuba's sin was. Yes I know all about the Missile Crisis (lived through that) but that only happened because the US forced Castro into the arms of Russia. Perhaps if instead they had actually applauded the manner it which Castro shut down the mob run casinos and brothels in Havana which were an insult to the Cubans and the source of much of US organised crime's profits and then actually sent aid to repair damage done by that parasite and criminal Batista then we would not have had the Missile Crisis nor this continuing act of bullying by the US. The way to create peaceful relations with Cuba was so simple yet the Yanks blew it completely. America owes Cuba a big apology.

Alpo:

16 Jan 2015 5:50:15pm

"Saddam Hussein (who single-handedly is responsible for more Muslim deaths than any other for centuries)"... Oh, just stop that brainless propaganda crap. The illegal Bush war in Iraq has caused more deaths than all the Middle East dictators put together! And the destabilising mess created by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in Iraq is still causing deaths and chaos, not to speak of creating training grounds for al Qaeda first and now ISIL!

As for Cuba, are you suggesting that it is the USA that should dictate Cuba's policies?.... Not much success at controlling Cuba since 1959, eh Terry?....

GrumpiSkeptic:

16 Jan 2015 5:29:38pm

The is one thing USA hates more than anything...It is losing. Not only losing, but losing face.

The numerous attempts to crush a tiny little nation called Cuba "infested" with communists had been less than successful. In fact, it was an utter failure, militarily and politically. So what do a "most powerful" nation on earth do? Sanctions.

Yes, sanctions and more sanctions. Like an unhappy adolescence who didn't get his way, he sulked. He threw tantrums. He made it difficult for others. It reminded me of Vietnam. Despite the fact that the mighty USA claimed that it didn't lose the war there, well, it didn't win either. So it imposed sanctions on the tiny nation until only quite recently! It loosened the economic grip on Vietnam. I suspect it does so because it dawned on USA that there is someone else sneaked in to do business with Vietnam. It is China.

So sulked and sulked USA did. Sure, Cuba and Cubans suffered from the sanctions. But being what they are, they are resourceful. If you want a vintage 1950 car that will fetch a good price in the West, go to Cuba. Economic sanctions will do some harms to a nation, especially now that Cuba no longer enjoys the protections of Russia. But you cannot crush an ideology. Americans should know, since they rigorously claim to be a Christian nation.

The Republicans will of course do the "right" thing by opposing anything with a "C" in front, I mean communist. They will oppose anything with a "D" in front, I am talking about "Democratic Party". Then one more with an "O" in front. It is "Obama". Rebels with causes ? Hardly.

Perhaps it is about time for the two nations to bury the hatchets and try a new route, as the old ways didn't seem to do much good for either side. One less thorn on its side is much preferable, isn't it ?

phil:

16 Jan 2015 5:47:54pm

Americas history with cuba has been a total discraceThere again cuba has free medical care and bettereducational outcomes than the usMaybe the ruling classes in america just dont wantthe poor white trash, hispanics and black-americansgetting the right idea